Are RUSH actually Prog?

Cristi wrote: Un Amico wrote: Peter Hammill and VDGG also rejected the label of 'Prog' that the press had attached to them, indicating that the band thought of themselves as 'underground'. There is an important distinction here I think. When you describe yourself as 'underground ' you are implying that you are free from commercial concerns and happy to be relevant and important to a small number of people only. Read the notes on Gentle Giant' s masterpiece ' Aquiring The Taste' for example..." it is our goal to expand the frontiers of popular music at the risk of being very unpopular". That is in my opinion the true spirit of what we call 'Prog'. 'Underground Pop' would probably be more accurate but it' s too long! underground pop? That's an oxymoron. How can one be both underground and mainstream in the same time?

Un Amico wrote: It's kind of relevant when the website is called Prog Archives. If it was called Whatever Archives maybe it would not matter as much.

I would expect a question a like this to be at a site called Pop Archives where the members haven't a clue as to what constitutes prog rock music.

Edited by SteveG - May 02 2021 at 22:49

Cristi wrote: Manuel wrote: Since there's not an actual definition of prog, it's very hard to draw the line in some cases. If Rush is not Prog, then most of the prog metal is also out of the picture. The only thing I care about is the music, and I love Rush's music. Progressive metal is more than just Rush influenced. Put any kind of experimentation or just going beyond the verse-chorus-verse pattern (for lack of a better word) on any metal subgenre, I will call that progressive.

I think it really depends on how narrow or wide one chooses their idea of prog to be. For me, prog is not a genre, and never has been - and I think a lot of artists who rebel against the tag do so, because the label being foisted upon them is pigeonholing them into prog as a genre.

I think after all the comments/posts here I would like to conclude that as far ss I am concerned it would be better to talk about Prog records instead of Prog bands. That way you vould have Thick as A Brick and A passion Play included here, but no other Tull album, eliminating all controversy or most of it antway...same with Rush, whol have now learned had a Prog period then went a different direction. It does not feel right to give an artist a 'Prog Passport' on the strength of only one or two albums. So my dear friends, I say Prog Music, Prog records, not bands.

richardh wrote: Prog now has a much wider definition but in the seventies I don't remember them being considered ''prog'' but then neither were Pink Floyd!! Nowadays I would say everything they did from 1975-1978 easily fits the wider definition. After than it's more 'arty' and pop rock before they turned full circle back to being a straight hard rock band.

Why do we have genres? To compare and categorize, which ultimately might lead a person liking prog band A to also discovering prog band B. To that end, I would be sorry if Rush wasn’t featured in here. I like prog music, pop prog, metal prog, folk prog, jazz prog. By the business and fans attempting to label and categorize, I’ve discovered lots of bands in here. There are big differences between genres, but they do share some commonalities that makes them appealing to a wide audience.

I’m all for introducing a few too many rather than too few. One can’t be consistent no matter how prog is defined, and as long as you can’t define it in a consistent manner, you have to accept a larger number of entries. Some spot on and some veering towards the edges.

I’m just happy to find all this great music, and having the prog umbrella makes that easier.

Zeph wrote: Why do we have genres? To compare and categorize, which ultimately might lead a person liking prog band A to also discovering prog band B. To that end, I would be sorry if Rush wasn’t featured in here. I like prog music, pop prog, metal prog, folk prog, jazz prog. By the business and fans attempting to label and categorize, I’ve discovered lots of bands in here. There are big differences between genres, but they do share some commonalities that makes them appealing to a wide audience. I’m all for introducing a few too many rather than too few. One can’t be consistent no matter how prog is defined, and as long as you can’t define it in a consistent manner, you have to accept a larger number of entries. Some spot on and some veering towards the edges. I’m just happy to find all this great music, and having the prog umbrella makes that easier.

Lovely! Well put!

Yes Rush define prog 

If we consider Genesis to be a prog act, even after a string of god-awful pop rock albums full of Vegas show tunes, then by that low bar Rush is prog as well. These debates are absolutely inane.